Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Mr.Tyler is a very caring man if I may say so, I had the pleasure of meeting him and his wife I am sorry that certian people have a hard time seeing the good in a person ,if we all could just get along we would live in a better world ,no one is better then anyone we are all equal we all make mistakes and we all pay for our mistakes,the cops are no better then the priest in our town ,If I would sit here and write about people I know in law enforcement yall would be puzzled so everyone needs to just keep your opinion to yourself including me.
I am not a cop hater and I don't believe I have every called you any name what so ever.
It is obvious you did not read the copy of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case I cited. There was only one image, or picture,that prompted the search of the scum bags home computer.
Smith claimed that he showed Ure a printed picture from the defendants work computer, Ure claimed he saw the picture on the defendants work computers monitor. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would remember if I actually held a picture in my hands or viewed it on a computer monitor.
Yes the defendant in the cited case was guilty and yes he should have lost the appeal. But the conflicting testimony was enough of a concern to the justices to mention it in their ruling.
"If they doubted Smiths testimony they would have stated, "Although it is unclear what image Smith showed Ure..." instead of "It is unclear exactly what images Ure saw..."
You are right that this statement is very telling. It demonstrates that blogging requires no application of deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.
Dont you think the photograph that was shown to Ure would have been turned over with the rest of the evidence? If so, what it was a depiction of would not be in question to the court. Therefore, your assertian that the court would question what photo was shown to Ure (the hypothetical "Although it is unclear what image Smith showed Ure" statement) is without merit.
The court would have known which image was shown, and would have no reason to question it. Therefore, the statement the court made was the only logical one... concluding that because Ure was involved in the process for the first few days, he may have been exposed to different images that consisted of different categories of pornography and was confusing them with the initial photo that he was presented by the technologist. Absolutely nothing in that legal brief insinuates that Ure was suspected of being misleading or decietful by the court, and yet you clearly attempt to imply just that in your post.
Most of us cannot remember whether we took the dog out this morning, or where we left the car keys, let alone what order we viewed some photos. Get a grip.
interesting stuff there legion357...........looks like a MO
If they doubted Smiths testimony they would have stated, "Although it is unclear what image Smith showed Ure..." instead of "It is unclear exactly what images Ure saw...", Picky picky, I know but it is a distinction that is very telling.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.WESLEY JOSEPH SLANINA, also known as Wesley J Slanina,Defendant-Appellant.
ConclusionWe look to six factors in determining whether consent (of search) is voluntary.
4. It is unclear exactly what images Ure saw. Smith recalls that he showed Ure "what was on thecomputer, the picture [he] had printed off." 4 R. 32. Ure, however, claims that he saw an actual imageof child pornography. Id. at 98.
Ure eithier "mis-remembered" or Ryan Smith , the Management Information Systems Coordinator, "mis-remembered"
The point being, the 5th circuit court of appeals had doubts about Ure s testimony, enough so that it was noted in their ruling.
"But when law enforcement are the "baddies."
Profound and complete, my friend. And I admit that you are correct in noticing that life is not a comic book. However, in my defense, "baddies" was actually refering to those who break laws, not those who at some point were trying to put a bad guy behind bars when nobody else would.
You see, a "baddie", in my humble opinion, might be a child-molester, a murderer, or a thief.
However, a public servent who swears to uphold justice for sake of society, answers a call that many of us are too shallow or self-absorbed to answer, and is legally chastised for their efforts is no baddie in my book.
I guess we must have read different comics, because we sure see different villians. Perhaps you grew up on Octobrianna?
Come on now, Chief Ure loves the attention, whether good or bad.
Bruce Ure is no stranger to the media spotlight: But he hasn't told Watauga city manager he's leaving.Victoria Advocate (Victoria, TX)| April 27, 2007 | COPYRIGHT 2007 Victoria Advocate
Just open the records for all to see and judge.
I find it hard to comprehend how a sane person could want a trial, regardless of their guilt or innocence. A jury trial is dangerous, no matter whether an individual committed a crime or is falsely accused. I find it equally hard to comprehend how someone could post that a person (who's freedom is on the line) should accept a trial by jury simply so that the public can have something to read about.
Let the justice system run its course. That way our officials can get back to work catching the baddies and our community can return to some type of normal.
Sealed Records=Sealed Secrets.
If this case is without merit, one would think the defense would welcome public disclosure of the evidence.
The best outcome of all of this...for everyone, including Ure, Tyler, taxpayers, voters...would be to have all the records opened, and a decision made by a jury. Only then can this whole incident be laid to rest. Let's hope Judge Williams makes the right decision.
I agree about the waste. Open the records. What are we hiding? Who are we protecting?
Ugh..."accept trial by jury Mr Ure" are you kidding me? Have you seen some decisions handed down by juries lately?
The judge needs to dismiss this fiasco.
That Tyler is a persistent lil'cuss, aint he? Too bad this much effort wasnt placed on prosecuting the real and original culprit in this matter. I'm just curious (and not that it's really any of my business)but, is Ratcliff collecting a law enforcement pension/retirement? Anyone know?
Let the Chief get back to work and drop it. He is a good chief and has been working hard for the people of Victoria. Time to move on Tyler.
A pseudonym is a fictitious name used by a person, or sometimes, a group.Pseudonyms are often used to hide an individual's real identity, as with writers' pen names, graffiti artists, resistance fighters' or terrorists' noms de guerre and computer hackers' handles
Now we know that Kollman is going to throw herself under the bus for DA Tyler for this fiasco. She says, "I cannot 'multitask' and delegate to an assistant when other commitments take precedence, but must do all the work myself." Poor Kollman. Perhaps she should have passed on the case if she had better things to do. Or maybe Tyler didn't mention that she was representing the State of Texas and the People of Victoria in the biggest political case in his tottering and slipshod career? Are we really to believe that Tyler refused to file a brief on appeal about his own incompetence because by that very incompetence he couldn't reveal what everyone knew to his own attorney? Huh? What?
No wonder Tyler was unopposed in his primary re-election campaign. There isn't a Republican in town that would want to (or could rationally) discuss this disaster. The issue of record sealing is a massive misdirection by Tyler and Kollman and a continuing waste of taxpayer money.